To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now, so that the steps you take are always in the right direction.Stephen Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
Clarissa
and I researched five models for assessing assistive technology:
SETT, Education Tech Points, HAAT, LAP and MPT.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
SETT Framework:
The SETT framework was
created to provide guidelines for school-based program planning teams
to ensure they are pairing students’ needs with appropriate
assistive technology based on the following criteria:
Student
Environment
Tasks
Tools
Joy Zabala designed this
widely used approach for collaborative decision-making in AT. Without
the full cooperation of the entire school program planning team,
critical mistakes can be made in regards to providing the best
possible options for a particular student.
Some elements the team
will analyze (student, environment, tasks & technology) include:
STUDENT-What
are the student’s needs, why aren’t they being met? Knowing
strengths, needs and preferences.
- What does the student need to do?
- What are the student’s special needs?
- What are the student’s current abilities?
ENVIRONMENT-
Are there adequate supports?
- What materials and equipment are currently available in the environment?
- What is the physical arrangement? Are there special concerns?
- What is the instructional arrangement? Are there likely to be changes?
- What supports are available to the student?
- What resources are available to the people supporting the student?
TASKS -
What tasks does the student need to accomplish?
- What activities occur naturally in the environment?
- What is everyone else doing?
- What activities support the student's curricular goals?
- What are the critical elements of the activities?
- How might the activities be modified to accommodate the student's special needs?
Tools
– What assistive technology might fit best?
- What no-tech, low-tech, or high-tech tools should be considered when developing a
system
for a student with these needs and abilities, doing these tasks, in
these
environments?
- What strategies might be used to invite increased student performance?
- How might these tools and strategies be tried out with the student in the customary environments in which they will be used?
Resources:
The
SETT Framework: www.joyzabala.com
Education
Tech Points (ETP)
Education
Tech Points was developed by Bowser and Reed. A helpful description of this assessment framework is found in the article, "Navigating the process: Educational
tech points for parents" (Bowser,
Gayl; Reed,
Penny. The
Exceptional Parent28.11
(Nov 1998): 28-36. )
The process follows the
following steps: Referral, Evaluation, Extended Assessment, Plan
Development, Implementation, and Periodic Review. It takes into
consideration student's current levels of performance, maturation
process, learning disability, and changes in the educational
environment.
Their website includes information for parents and educators regarding training and resources. Probably most exciting on their site is the document, "Hey! Can I Try That?" - A Student Handbook for Choosing and Using Assistive Technology. This handbook encouraged students to self-advocate, using case studies and personal reflection. It is solution-based, and encourages students to self-assess the effectiveness of the AT they select.
Their website includes information for parents and educators regarding training and resources. Probably most exciting on their site is the document, "Hey! Can I Try That?" - A Student Handbook for Choosing and Using Assistive Technology. This handbook encouraged students to self-advocate, using case studies and personal reflection. It is solution-based, and encourages students to self-assess the effectiveness of the AT they select.
H.A.A.T.
H.A.A.T.,
which stands for “Human Activity Assistive Technology”, was
developed by Cook and Hussey and based on Bailey’s “Human
Performance Model.”
The
components of the HAAT model are (1) Activity, (2) Human, (3)
Context, and (4) the Assistive technology.
Activity
refers to self-care, work/school and play/leisure.
Human
refers to the doer or operator and considers the abilities and skills
of the individual, as well as the level of skill or ability (i.e.
novice or expert).
Context
refers to all
aspects of where
the activity is being performed: the setting (environment), social
context (with peers, strangers, family), cultural context, and
physical context.
Assistive
Technology includes
all the interfaces that enable human performance to improve, both
hard technologies
and soft
technologies.
Wissick
and Gardner, in the article Conducting
Assessments in Technology Needs:
From
Assessment to Implementation,
(http://aei.sagepub.com/content/33/2/78),
write:
Cook
and Hussey (2002) discussed the HAAT model based on the interaction
among three parts: the human, the activity, and the assistive
technology. According to Cook and Hussey, holding all these parts
together is the context in which the technology is used for persons
with disabilities. For these parts to fit together, their interaction
must be given equal weight. The activity is the goal to be achieved,
and the human has the skills available to meet the goal. The context
bringing these skills and goals together defines constraints on
achieving goals. The assistive technology therefore provides an
external way for the human to perform the activity. (p. 80)
L.A.P.
The
LAP,
or Lifespace Access
Profile, developed
by Williams, Stemach, Wolfe and Stanger (1994), has two assessments
for evaluation physical needs. The Lifespace Access Profile Upper
Extension is for individuals with physical needs but not significant
cognitive delays. The Lifespace Access Profile is for individuals
with severe or multiple disabilities. It assesses five domains:
physical resources, cognitive resources, emotional resources, support
resources, and environmental analysis. Each domain has a series of
rating scales for students’ abilities and preferences, and support
services available.
Copley and Ziviani (http://stfx.worldcat.org/oclc/4900741410), in their research paper, Use of a Team-Based Approach to Assistive Technology Assessment and Planning for Children With Multiple Disabilities: A Pilot Study, use LAP and LAPUE as the instrument in their study.
MTP
– Matching Technology to Person
The Matching Technology to
Person model recognizes the immense technology options people with
special needs are faced with. Even though there might be a perfect
tool for a certain need, it may not be used
appropriately or even go unused when personality preferences, social
characteristics or environmental support are not considered. In order
to properly match technology to person, data must be gathered and all
aspects of the student’s life must be considered.
Critique:
It
is hard to fairly assess these models, as I do not feel I have an
adequate picture of some of them. I have not worked with any of these models. There seems to be more information
available for some, which may be an indication of the frequency of
their use. In this initial exploration, I would prefer to use SETT or
HAAT. I like how they take a realistic look at what is possible based
on the resources available. I also like how HAAT and SETT consider
the context
or environment
as important elements in decision-making. I think the most effective
way to evaluate these models would be by trying them, and seeing if
they achieve the expected results. The praxis model of action-reflection would provide an authentic assessment of the ability of each model to achieve the desired result: an effective and efficient AT match.
Thanks Mary great searching. The key commonalities are that all models focus on the strenghths and needs of the student first, the task then the technology.
ReplyDelete